Complexity, part 2

...and too may badly marked arrangements,
awkward page turns, impossible mute changes,
missing rehearsal letters, 14th generation
photocopies, etc... for the royal ear. Just cut a
few and it will be perfect.

You can only focus your conscious mind on one thing at a time! Multitasking is a myth! There are three levels of complexity in the band, and you can't possibly pay attention to all of them at once, but somehow you have to cover them all in just the right amounts, at just the right times. Not paying enough attention to the section and ensemble levels is a hallmark of nonprofessional bands. The commonly heard complaint is that musicians are buried in their own parts, nearly oblivious to what's going on around them. The band can't stay together, phrasing goes out the window, cues are missed, tempos shift and lurch uncontrollably, etc. Oy.

As I wrote last time, part of the problem comes from band leaders picking out charts that are too difficult for musicians from a technical perspective. Musicians who are pushed to the limits of their technical capabilities won't have enough mental bandwidth left over to pay attention to their section and the whole ensemble. But not so fast! The individual musicians themselves bear an equal responsibility, too! Their job is to practice until their parts can be played without much conscious effort, which frees up some of that mental bandwidth for the section and ensemble levels. Practice time can also be spent expanding their abilities so that those more difficult charts come more easily as well. 

Shifting back to band leaders for a moment- how many of them allow their musicians to take their parts home with them? Not many, in my experience. How about having two copies of every book? A .pdf copy on the band's web site? A .jpg image of the parts on the band's web site? (Hey, musicians, you can do this too during rehearsal since most of us have some kind of portable device with a camera on it.) There's scarcely an excuse for musicians not having a copy of their parts available to them outside rehearsal, and there's no excuse at all for musicians not to practice troublesome parts until they have it down cold. Any given chart might not be played for weeks at a time, and without the ability to practice parts at home, it's almost like sight reading every time.

What's the appropriate mix of attention to your own part, your section, and the whole band? Not to be vague or slippery, but that depends. You have to constantly cycle your attention between those three levels all the time. The perpetual self-monitoring and adjustment is what makes playing in an ensemble so challenging- and rewarding! So, my prescription for the complexity problem is as follows:

• Band leaders pick easier tunes
• Band leaders pick fewer tunes
• Band leaders make the parts available for musicians to practice at home (musicians do this for themselves as a backup if needed)
• Musicians practice their parts until they are half-memorized (not much conscious effort needed)
• Musicians work on expanding their skill sets
• Rehearsals focus on section and ensemble level playing. No re-do's for simply flubbing notes. 

The Simple Truth About Complexity

Anyone see where the D.S. is?

I almost fell into the complexity trap trying to write this blog post, so I'll keep things as simple as possible. 

Band leaders need to be very careful when they select which charts they'll rehearse and perform. Complexity is an often neglected aspect of ensemble playing. It's not just sixteen people playing their individual parts! Individuals have to blend with their section, and the sections have to blend with each other. So there's really three layers of complexity to consider!

You've got to have enough brain power left over for people to spend on ensemble playing if the band is going to sound... well, like a band, and not a gaggle of musicians all fighting each other like they're on an overcrowded subway car.

The saxophones usually have the busiest parts in any given chart, so look there to get a feel for how difficult the chart is from an individual technical standpoint. For example, if the individual sax players can handle a "7" level of difficulty (on a scale of 1 to 10), make sure their parts are no more difficult than a "4" or "5", so that they're not pushed to the limits of their ability to just play the notes. That way they can do the necessary work of splitting their attention between covering their own part and using their listening skills to work on ensemble playing as a section and a band. 

This is such a crucial role for the band leader, but time and again I see super difficult charts put in front of the band, with the same predictable results. I don't know if it's just wishful thinking that band members will step up their game, or maybe just a sadistic macho desire to play really advanced material.

I do know that even if everyone in the band can play a level "7" piece as individuals, as an ensemble, they'll probably be able to pull off a level "5" chart and no more. There's a trade-off between scale and complexity, as Yaneer Bar-Yam aptly points out in this fine book.

I also do know that I'd much rather hear a less technically complex chart played with real attention to ensemble playing and artistry than hear the same band hack their way through a dense chart, lurching and staggering to make to the end without a train wreck. Believe me, it's no badge of honor. Rather, it's a sign that the band leader needs to reconsider his role and think harder about what the band is capable of, not the individuals themselves. 

Simple enough?

[Update: A reader made a good argument for looking at the trumpets' parts instead of the saxophones'. I chose the saxophones because their parts tend to be busier, hence a better indicator of complexity. The trumpets' parts tend to be difficult in terms of range and endurance, but not necessarily complexity. My focus here was leaving enough mental bandwidth left over for ensemble playing. As a band leader, you do have to mind how many screeching trumpet charts you pack in to a set.]